Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California, as well as Texas are starting to build desalination plants. It is now possible to convert salt water from the ocean, into fresh water. Sorry midwest but we don't need your water.
This. The Great Lakes won't save the midest. There is plenty of eager elsewhere.
In any case, you act like domestic migration loss is a problem just for Northern states. It is not.
California: -77,219
Virginia: -23,813
New Mexico: -13,352
Mississippi: -12,230
Alaska: -7,678
Kentucky: -7,441
Louisiana: -7,358
Hawaii: -7,026
West Virginia: -4,685
Alabama: -2,268
Wyoming: -1,885
Arkansas: -1,212
Without Florida or Texas, the Southeast grew domestically by just 88,409. That is only about 50% of the total for Texas alone. So the story is not about a Southern boom, but really just about 2 states.
The story is similar when considering Northern negative domestic migration. In the Midwest, Illinois accounted for almost 50% of the entire negative total. In the Northeast, New York accounted for about 80%. So the domestic migration from North to South is very likely mostly just from a handful of states TO a handful of states. But we're often told that it's an all-encompassing phenomenon. It is not.
Every state, except for Delaware and North Dakota (which I don't consider a true Midwest state), in the Midwest and Northeast lost people. It isn't like the Midwest has proven itself to be a viable alternative to The Sunbelt like The Pacific Northwest has.
Every state, except for Delaware and North Dakota (which I don't consider a true Midwest state), in the Midwest and Northeast lost people. It isn't like the Midwest has proven itself to be a viable alternative to The Sunbelt like The Pacific Northwest has.
South Dakota gained around 10,000 residents due to domestic migration as well.
California is "too big to fail" being the most populous state as well as the tech and entertainment capital of not just America, but the world. If California was about to run out of water and the only water available was from the Great Lakes the federal government would step in and hire a company to immediately start piping water into California via Lake Michigan.
The tech and entertainment aspect is irrelevant, and can always be displaced. California is mainly important in a national respect because of how much food is grown there for the rest of the country. Severe, decade-long droughts in California can/will devastate the food market both nationally and internationally.
Every state, except for Delaware and North Dakota (which I don't consider a true Midwest state), in the Midwest and Northeast lost people. It isn't like the Midwest has proven itself to be a viable alternative to The Sunbelt like The Pacific Northwest has.
I am far more interested in trends than past results. Here are a few I found interesting.
Extrapolated out to 2020, in terms of domestic migration, the 14 Southern states would see their rates decline by an average of almost 43%. 9 total states would decline, with their average decline being about 97%. The remaining 5 states would see increases at an average rate change of 55%.
The Midwest is on track for some very wide swings from state to state if the estimates are right. The average rate change would be a decline of 34%. 6 of the 12 states would see declines, with the average being 222%. The other 6 would see increases at an average rate change of 154%.
The same is true if we looked at natural growth.
Again, through 2020, the average rate change for the 14 Southern states would be a decline of 103%. However, this is because WV's decline is off the charts. Without it, the other 13 would average a decline of just over 13%. Only 3 total states would see an increase, at an average change of 1.9% The remaining 11 would see a decline average of over 138%. Without WV, that falls to about 18%.
The Midwest's 12 states would see an average change of just over 2% in the positive. 5 states would see improvements with an average change of about 28%, while the remaining 7 would see declines at an average rate of 16%.
So more Southern states are on track this decade to see their growth rates decline vs. the 2000s in terms of domestic migration and natural growth than those in the Midwest. International migration, btw, was generally positive and improving in every state, with the exceptions of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina and Illinois, which are all projected to see that rate decline.
Arizona isn't coming for your water, so ridiculous. Arizona gets its water from the mountains so the fact that the population centers are in the desert is irrelevant.
Secession? Pray tell me you're joking. Most Americans are severely dumbed down and overweight, addicted to NFL football, the Kardashians and video games. Good luck getting them off the couch to get involved in a secession movement, LOL.
I get it, these are tough times for the rust belt and northeastern states and people are on edge. Arizona just passed up Massachusetts to become the 14th most populous state and now we will be gunnin' to take out Michigan and Ohio which should happen in a decade or two.
easy to do when you can fit 11 Massachusett's in 1 Arizona.
MA+RI+CT+NY+NJ is just under 80K sq miles and has 40.2 million or 6x the population with 33K sq miles to spare.
Its easy to grow fast when nobody lives there yet. Massachusetts has 850ppsm which is almost twice as dense as the county Phoenix is in. (444ppsm)
Perhaps I'm reading incorrectly between your lines here but I think not. If I'm accurate in my assumption, they seem to be code words for something. Care to elaborate more precisely?
Take it how you want. I know a bunch of transplants to Georgia and Florida, and I prefer Floridas.
It's important to realize that domestic migration has two components. One is retirees/empty nesters, and the other is young single people and families. It really doesn't matter too much if the latter group leave a state - it more or less means the population reduction which would have been felt from their death is instead felt around two decades earlier. In contrast, younger people cause the population to decline twice over, as not only is the resident lost, but all of their future offspring are as well.
On the other side, consider an area which is growing in population due to dependence on retirees. Given the retirees will eventually either die or have to move closer to their family when they become frail, a certain number of retirees needs to be attracted every single year to ensure the population stays stable. Growth requires progressively larger and larger numbers to be attracted every single year. So far this is a pretty good deal for many places (such as parts of Arizona and Florida) but once the Boomers start dying off, and the much smaller Generation X heads into retirement, there will be somewhat of a bubble collapse here.
This is true. but when you look the breakdown of population growth in Florida, If their weren't so many old people dying the population growth would be tremendous. Florida would be growing even faster than Texas, winch has a very high birth rate, and a very low death rate. F;Florida birth rate and death rate are about the same, the Growth is being attributed completely by people moving to Florida from everywhere. What I think is crazy is the fact that just two year ago New York had more people then Florida, But now has almost half a million less. If it weren't for the birth rate New York would be loosing too.
Texas is a very fertile state, the stats confirm this. As somebody who has been to Texas more than a few times this comes as no surprise. The woman, generally speaking, tend to be very curvy, friendly and attractive and the vast majority appeared to be in their prime childbearing years.
I think the heroin epidemic sweeping the New England region may be contributing to lower fertility rates in states like Vermont, NH, and Maine. When you're high on heroin you probably aren't inclined to get off the sofa, let alone procreate. This may be why states like Maine and Vermont have more deaths than births, not only are fertility rates low but people are ODing left and right on heroin, a deadly combo.
easy to do when you can fit 11 Massachusett's in 1 Arizona.
MA+RI+CT+NY+NJ is just under 80K sq miles and has 40.2 million or 6x the population with 33K sq miles to spare.
Its easy to grow fast when nobody lives there yet. Massachusetts has 850ppsm which is almost twice as dense as the county Phoenix is in. (444ppsm)
Some valid points but keep in mind the vast majority of Arizona's 6.8 million people live in either Maricopa or Pima county. Those two counties account for about 80% of Arizona's population with a combined size of about 18,400 sq. miles. So you have 5.5 million people residing in 18,400 sq miles which works out to a very respectable 300ppsm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
